The election is over and Donald J. Trump won fair and square. The system is not rigged and the people spoke through their vote.

First off, don’t despair. President-elect Trump’s acceptance speech was conciliatory and sounded like a Democrat with trillions of dollars of spending for infrastructure. Who will take those jobs? I don’t know.

Further, I was glad to see Sec. Clinton and President Obama strike tones of working together. We need success from this new president or we face an even harder road ahead.

Also, many are going to say social media changed everything and traditional media lost its power. I disagree, this election was all about frustration with politics as usual, the perception of corruption, and the feeling that those in power simply don’t care about We The People. This was about the man and his message, not the medium on which it was carried.

President-elect Trump has both the House and Senate, like President Obama did, for at least his first two years. He has made some big promises, the question is will the GOP work with him on some of the big spending he is proposing.

Lastly, I am deeply concerned that President-elect Trump made it normal that people tap into their Jungian shadow. The levels of sexism, xenophobia, and downright hatred are scary. What will he do to tamp down the neo-Nazi crowd that so lovingly supported his candidacy?

I’ll have more to say on this topic today. Tune in to KGO 810 from noon to 2 p.m. Pacific time on AM 810 or online at www.kgoradio.com

Share this:

Ethan Explains California Proposition 66

This is the last of the California statewide ballot initiatives in 2016 that I’ll cover. Proposition 66 is the “Death Penalty Procedures Initiative” Also known as the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings” Initiative.” This is the second initiative on the ballot to address the death penalty this year. The other is Prop 62.

The death penalty is having trouble in California because of the massive and lengthy appeals process. When talking about the ultimate penalty, death, we as a society do need to be careful.

However, endless delays, limited attorneys, and the only court that can hear habeas corpus in death penalty is the California Supreme Court.

So, Proposition 66 aims to address those issues by letting lower courts hear the appeals, which will then work their way up through the system like any other crime. Further, it caps the appeals length to 5 years. But, this Proposition also throws in a work requirement.

I like portions of this initiative, like opening up the courts and attorneys that can address these cases. I am uncomfortable with a constitutional work requirement to repay victims. I support the idea of prisoners working to pay off their debts: court ordered yes, prison system ordered yes, constitutionally ordered no.

Further, I think the five year cap is actually too short. Seven or ten years seems like a much more reasonable cap, five is simply too short to accomplish everything required in a capital punishment case.

I still support having the death penalty available, plus a reasonable process to ensure proper justice. But like so many other propositions, this one is trying to address too many things at once, some of which I disagree.

I say NO to Proposition 66.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Proposition 65 sends the money that grocers collect, by law, for the paper bags and sends it to the California Treasury for management by the Wildlife Conservation Board.

Proposition 67 lets the grocery stores keep the money.

Since the plastic bag ban was to help save the oceans and environment from plastic pollution, doesn’t it make sense to spend the money on environmental programs?

I never understood why grocers were forced by law to charge for the brown paper bags. Why not let them compete and make it a value added service? Instead it became a government mandated revenue stream. I want to keep plastic bags out of the ocean, the beaches, and the rest of the environment. But, since our legislators decided on forcing a charge for paper bags, let that money go to environmental programs.

I say YES to Prop 65 and NO to Prop 67.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

This initiative would allow Californians 21 years of age and over to possess up to one ounce of weed, have six plants for growing, tax sales at 15 percent, and limit ads targeted at minors.

All attempts for the past 45 years to stop people from consuming cannabis have failed. Stop supporting the cartels.

One area that does need to be addressed is Driving Under the Influence (DUI). I am concerned about that now and California needs a standard in place to address this problem. BTW, I discussed this on my KGO Show with Todd Mitchem from Colorado. Take a listen HERE.

It’s also important to note that not only has prohibition not worked, in Washington and Colorado usage rates have NOT gone up since legalization. This simply removes the criminal element.

Proposition 63 claims to reduce gun crimes in the state of California by requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition, banning possession of large capacity magazines, increasing penalties for theft of firearms, and requiring reporting for those thefts.

Requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition

This is a newer approach by gun control advocates. The claim is that a criminal in possession of an illegal firearm still needs to buy ammunition. If we make the purchase of ammunition more difficult, they will commit fewer crimes with firearms. On the face of it, that appears logical. However, Illinois has already had this type of rule in effect for years. Yet, we consistently hear about the out of control murder rate in Chicago. The law doesn’t stop criminals and this approach hasn’t worked in Illinois other than inconveniencing legal firearm owners.

Banning possession of high capacity magazines

California banned the purchase of high capacity magazines in 2000. They are magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Proposition 63 seeks to outlaw them completely, including possession. So, a firearm owner who legally purchased on before 2000 will be required to dispose of it or sell it out-of-state if this initiative passes. The argument for this is that no reasonable person needs this kind of firepower. And the argument against is that these are used for sport shooting and jam quite frequently so any criminal who uses one has a significantly reduced chance of success. I am neutral on this argument.

Increasing penalties for theft of firearms

Right now in California, due to Prop 47, theft of a firearm valued less than $950 is petty theft. The maximum penalties for most petty theft convictions are a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), up to six (6) months in county jail, or both. And right now, maximum penalties for petty theft are not happening. Proposition 63 will recategorize ALL firearm thefts to felony with up to 3 years in prison, as they were before Prop 47. I strongly support this portion of the initiative.

Requiring reporting for firearm thefts

Under this initiative, sellers of ammunition would need to report a theft or loss within 48 hours. Individuals would be required to report a theft or loss within five days to local law enforcement. Right now, many criminals are acquiring their firearms through theft, like the Kate Steinle killer. In order to help law enforcement track stolen firearms a reporting requirement is a sensible approach. Plus, any rational firearm owner would want law enforcement to know the date their weapon was stolen so if it is used in a crime in the future, they aren’t a suspect. This section is entirely logical.

The problem with Proposition 63, like so many others, is that instead of focusing on a single issue, many are combined into one. I can support portions of this initiative, but not others. Further, this is a political move by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to burnsih his anti-gun credentials before the 2018 gubernatorial election. Infringing constitutional rights without evidence to support the intended conclusion sits poorly with me. Properly use the legislature to pass the reasonable sections.

I say NO to Proposition 63.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Does anybody actually like the death penalty? The purpose of the death penalty is to apply the ultimate retributive justice to the most vile offenders against society.

Think of brutal serial killers who murder many and terrorize whole communities. Those people are why we have the death penalty.

Proponents of Prop 62 argue that the death penalty is costly and justice isn’t served when people stay on death row for decades. True. However, the reason they are on death row for decades is because of the people who are against the death penalty. See the circular logic there?

Look, California is not Texas or Oklahoma. Two states where it seems like there is a blood-thirsty approach to the death penalty and retribution. California is a restrained state when it comes to applying for the death penalty.

Further, I’d like our prosecutors to have the discretion to apply for the death penalty in the cases of the most egregious murderers. Plus, if it deters even one killer, it is worthwhile.

I say NO to Proposition 62.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

So, here in California Proposition 61 is an attempt to rein in drug prices for state agenices by tying prices they pay to the VA. Seems logical to find the lowest government price in the USA and make state agencies pay that same, low price.

Except it doesn’t.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has a special deal with the pharmaceutical companies to ensure low drug prices for our military veterans who heeded the call of our country. This initiative might impact that contract and availability of drugs.

Worse yet, there will be an endless flurry of lawsuits over this which will drag out for many years and likely cost millions, if not tens of millions of dollars to fight.

Finally, Prop 61 only helps a couple hundred thousand to maybe a million Californians, not the 37 million who live here. Another special interest grab benefitting the few on the backs of all of us. If you really want to fix this problem, fully repeal the Prescription Drug Marketing Act signed into law in 1988 which banned the re-importation of USA made drugs from countries like Canada where they have lower, fixed prices on pharmaceuticals.

I say NO to Proposition 61.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) rates in California are the highest they’ve been in 25 years, according to the Los Angeles Times. We have a strain of gonorrhea that has become antibiotic resistant, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. And while HIV rates are slowiy declining, 1 in 8 people infected have no idea, according to AIDS.gov.

So, a proposition stating that actors must use protection and get tested regularly would be logical. But, Proposition 60 is not that answer.

Here we have an initiative that was likely written or underwritten by some attorneys who are looking to cash in on a massive new set of lawsuits. This thing is written essentially deputizing every Californian to look into the porn industry and report every potential violation. Worse, there is so much money built in to every violation that this thing is a potentially massive windfall for the attorney or attorneys who become the leaders in suing for this new cash industry.

Really, wrangling the STD problem IS a major public health concern that we do need to continue to focus on, but this is not the answer.

I say NO to Proposition 60.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com

Ethan Explains California Proposition 59

Money in politics is corrosive to a democratic system as the person with the most money can buy the most influence.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was ruled on by the United States Supreme Court in January of 2010. This ruling said money is equal to speech and protected under the First Amendment. Further, “the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.”

Bad news for our country, right?

But Proposition 59 doesn’t fix this ruling. It is an abuse of the ballot initiative process by crowding the ballot with a non-binding advisory that changes nothing, nothing about money in politics.

Money is not equivalent to speech. Money is a substitute for bartering goods or gold. Money and bartering alike are methods of economic transaction, not forms of speech. If you traded a goat for a sheaf of wheat, would you consider that speech? Or how about an iPad for an Xbox, still speech? Corporations, unions, and non-persons should not be able to participate in political campaigns as individuals.

What I also find interesting is the volume with which my friends on the left argue against Citizens United, yet they leverage it to their advantage every bit as much as my friends on the right. Take a look at what OpenSecrets lists, you’ll see just as many liberal groups with money as conservative.

Education in California has its share of challenges. Making sure all children are proficient in English when they graduate high school is critical for their ability to function in our society. This includes kids whose first language is not English.

Californians approved Prop 227 back in 1998 to ensure that non-native English speaking children had full immersion to learn English. This was in response to certain districts, educators, and activists undermining or failing to teach English as a Second Language (ESL).

What we’ve found in the meantime is that the severe measures of Prop 227 are not always effective. And it has taken away local control for choosing the best methods of teaching ESL.

Proposition 58 modifies Prop 227 to allow local control and flexibility to choose what the local parents and educators deem best for their children. Most importantly, Prop 58 does NOT remove the English language proficiency requirements.

Further, Proposition 58 requires no additional or new funding.

Last, having as many bilingual or multilingual children as possible only strengthens our country, our economy, and gives us advantages on the world stage. We want to be the best, right?

I say YES to Proposition 58.

Tune in to The Ethan Bearman Show Monday through Friday, noon to 2 p.m. on KGO 810 – www.kgoradio.com